Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 891

control, N = 441

treatment, N = 451

p-value2

age

89

50.11 ± 13.07 (25 - 74)

49.93 ± 13.34 (25 - 74)

50.29 ± 12.94 (28 - 73)

0.897

gender

89

0.439

f

64 (72%)

30 (68%)

34 (76%)

m

25 (28%)

14 (32%)

11 (24%)

occupation

89

0.776

day_training

2 (2.2%)

2 (4.5%)

0 (0%)

full_time

10 (11%)

5 (11%)

5 (11%)

homemaker

6 (6.7%)

3 (6.8%)

3 (6.7%)

other

2 (2.2%)

0 (0%)

2 (4.4%)

part_time

15 (17%)

7 (16%)

8 (18%)

retired

22 (25%)

10 (23%)

12 (27%)

self_employ

4 (4.5%)

2 (4.5%)

2 (4.4%)

student

2 (2.2%)

0 (0%)

2 (4.4%)

t_and_e

2 (2.2%)

1 (2.3%)

1 (2.2%)

unemploy

24 (27%)

14 (32%)

10 (22%)

marital

89

0.667

cohabitation

1 (1.1%)

0 (0%)

1 (2.2%)

divore

10 (11%)

7 (16%)

3 (6.7%)

in_relationship

1 (1.1%)

1 (2.3%)

0 (0%)

married

22 (25%)

10 (23%)

12 (27%)

none

49 (55%)

23 (52%)

26 (58%)

seperation

3 (3.4%)

2 (4.5%)

1 (2.2%)

widow

3 (3.4%)

1 (2.3%)

2 (4.4%)

edu

89

0.662

bachelor

26 (29%)

9 (20%)

17 (38%)

diploma

19 (21%)

12 (27%)

7 (16%)

hd_ad

3 (3.4%)

2 (4.5%)

1 (2.2%)

postgraduate

7 (7.9%)

4 (9.1%)

3 (6.7%)

primary

5 (5.6%)

2 (4.5%)

3 (6.7%)

secondary_1_3

10 (11%)

6 (14%)

4 (8.9%)

secondary_4_5

17 (19%)

8 (18%)

9 (20%)

secondary_6_7

2 (2.2%)

1 (2.3%)

1 (2.2%)

fam_income

89

0.933

10001_12000

4 (4.5%)

1 (2.3%)

3 (6.7%)

12001_14000

5 (5.6%)

2 (4.5%)

3 (6.7%)

14001_16000

5 (5.6%)

2 (4.5%)

3 (6.7%)

16001_18000

3 (3.4%)

1 (2.3%)

2 (4.4%)

18001_20000

4 (4.5%)

3 (6.8%)

1 (2.2%)

20001_above

15 (17%)

7 (16%)

8 (18%)

2001_4000

14 (16%)

9 (20%)

5 (11%)

4001_6000

10 (11%)

4 (9.1%)

6 (13%)

6001_8000

9 (10%)

5 (11%)

4 (8.9%)

8001_10000

7 (7.9%)

3 (6.8%)

4 (8.9%)

below_2000

13 (15%)

7 (16%)

6 (13%)

medication

89

79 (89%)

40 (91%)

39 (87%)

0.739

onset_duration

89

15.13 ± 10.76 (0 - 56)

16.47 ± 11.97 (1 - 56)

13.82 ± 9.38 (0 - 35)

0.248

onset_age

89

34.98 ± 13.99 (14 - 64)

33.46 ± 12.73 (14 - 58)

36.47 ± 15.12 (15 - 64)

0.314

1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%)

2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test

Measurement

Table

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 891

control, N = 441

treatment, N = 451

p-value2

recovery_stage_a

89

3.06 ± 1.18 (1 - 5)

3.09 ± 1.22 (1 - 5)

3.02 ± 1.16 (1 - 5)

0.786

recovery_stage_b

89

17.94 ± 2.66 (9 - 23)

17.75 ± 2.83 (9 - 23)

18.13 ± 2.50 (13 - 23)

0.500

ras_confidence

89

29.97 ± 4.81 (19 - 43)

29.41 ± 4.48 (19 - 40)

30.51 ± 5.10 (20 - 43)

0.282

ras_willingness

89

12.17 ± 1.94 (7 - 15)

12.00 ± 1.90 (9 - 15)

12.33 ± 1.99 (7 - 15)

0.422

ras_goal

89

17.54 ± 2.88 (12 - 24)

17.36 ± 2.90 (12 - 24)

17.71 ± 2.89 (12 - 24)

0.573

ras_reliance

89

13.10 ± 2.76 (8 - 20)

12.95 ± 2.59 (8 - 18)

13.24 ± 2.94 (8 - 20)

0.623

ras_domination

89

9.87 ± 2.35 (3 - 15)

10.34 ± 2.30 (3 - 15)

9.40 ± 2.32 (3 - 14)

0.058

symptom

89

30.58 ± 9.70 (14 - 56)

32.14 ± 9.88 (14 - 55)

29.07 ± 9.38 (15 - 56)

0.136

slof_work

89

22.69 ± 4.87 (10 - 30)

22.50 ± 4.42 (13 - 30)

22.87 ± 5.32 (10 - 30)

0.725

slof_relationship

89

25.64 ± 5.91 (11 - 35)

25.00 ± 5.94 (13 - 35)

26.27 ± 5.88 (11 - 35)

0.315

satisfaction

89

20.30 ± 6.80 (5 - 32)

18.75 ± 6.46 (5 - 29)

21.82 ± 6.86 (5 - 32)

0.032

mhc_emotional

89

11.09 ± 3.74 (3 - 18)

10.64 ± 3.44 (3 - 17)

11.53 ± 4.00 (4 - 18)

0.260

mhc_social

89

14.85 ± 5.26 (6 - 30)

15.00 ± 5.27 (7 - 30)

14.71 ± 5.31 (6 - 26)

0.797

mhc_psychological

89

21.93 ± 5.91 (6 - 36)

21.43 ± 5.43 (10 - 36)

22.42 ± 6.37 (6 - 36)

0.433

resilisnce

89

16.53 ± 4.50 (6 - 27)

16.11 ± 4.25 (6 - 24)

16.93 ± 4.74 (7 - 27)

0.393

social_provision

89

13.70 ± 2.80 (5 - 20)

13.25 ± 2.32 (8 - 20)

14.13 ± 3.17 (5 - 20)

0.138

els_value_living

89

17.08 ± 2.89 (5 - 25)

16.43 ± 2.40 (12 - 22)

17.71 ± 3.21 (5 - 25)

0.036

els_life_fulfill

89

12.53 ± 3.30 (4 - 20)

11.48 ± 3.04 (5 - 17)

13.56 ± 3.26 (4 - 20)

0.003

els

89

29.61 ± 5.60 (9 - 45)

27.91 ± 4.62 (18 - 36)

31.27 ± 6.02 (9 - 45)

0.004

social_connect

89

26.92 ± 9.02 (8 - 48)

27.84 ± 8.14 (8 - 45)

26.02 ± 9.82 (8 - 48)

0.345

shs_agency

89

14.40 ± 4.82 (3 - 24)

13.57 ± 4.43 (3 - 21)

15.22 ± 5.10 (3 - 24)

0.106

shs_pathway

89

16.46 ± 3.87 (4 - 24)

15.93 ± 3.72 (8 - 24)

16.98 ± 3.99 (4 - 23)

0.205

shs

89

30.87 ± 8.24 (7 - 47)

29.50 ± 7.77 (13 - 45)

32.20 ± 8.55 (7 - 47)

0.123

esteem

89

12.64 ± 1.53 (10 - 18)

12.93 ± 1.56 (10 - 18)

12.36 ± 1.46 (10 - 16)

0.076

mlq_search

89

15.08 ± 3.21 (3 - 21)

14.93 ± 3.07 (6 - 21)

15.22 ± 3.37 (3 - 21)

0.672

mlq_presence

89

13.46 ± 4.11 (3 - 21)

13.23 ± 3.70 (5 - 21)

13.69 ± 4.51 (3 - 21)

0.599

mlq

89

28.54 ± 6.47 (6 - 42)

28.16 ± 5.80 (12 - 40)

28.91 ± 7.10 (6 - 42)

0.586

empower

89

19.29 ± 4.08 (6 - 28)

18.77 ± 3.65 (11 - 24)

19.80 ± 4.45 (6 - 28)

0.237

ismi_resistance

89

14.69 ± 2.61 (5 - 20)

14.36 ± 2.18 (11 - 19)

15.00 ± 2.97 (5 - 20)

0.253

ismi_discrimation

89

11.44 ± 3.07 (5 - 19)

12.41 ± 2.81 (5 - 19)

10.49 ± 3.05 (5 - 19)

0.003

sss_affective

89

10.10 ± 3.69 (3 - 18)

10.61 ± 3.52 (3 - 18)

9.60 ± 3.82 (3 - 18)

0.196

sss_behavior

89

9.73 ± 3.92 (3 - 18)

10.41 ± 4.02 (3 - 18)

9.07 ± 3.74 (3 - 18)

0.107

sss_cognitive

89

8.19 ± 3.75 (3 - 18)

8.66 ± 3.92 (3 - 18)

7.73 ± 3.56 (3 - 18)

0.246

sss

89

28.02 ± 10.46 (9 - 54)

29.68 ± 10.39 (9 - 54)

26.40 ± 10.38 (9 - 54)

0.140

1Mean ± SD (Range)

2Two Sample t-test

Plot

Data analysis

Table

Group

Characteristic

Beta

SE1

95% CI1

p-value

recovery_stage_a

(Intercept)

3.09

0.176

2.75, 3.44

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.069

0.247

-0.553, 0.416

0.782

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.212

0.259

-0.295, 0.719

0.415

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.278

0.368

-0.444, 0.999

0.454

Pseudo R square

0.023

recovery_stage_b

(Intercept)

17.8

0.414

16.9, 18.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.383

0.582

-0.757, 1.52

0.511

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.287

0.569

-1.40, 0.828

0.616

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.956

0.810

-0.633, 2.54

0.243

Pseudo R square

0.024

ras_confidence

(Intercept)

29.4

0.752

27.9, 30.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.10

1.058

-0.971, 3.18

0.300

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.430

0.783

-1.10, 1.96

0.585

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.11

1.117

-1.08, 3.30

0.325

Pseudo R square

0.032

ras_willingness

(Intercept)

12.0

0.302

11.4, 12.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.333

0.424

-0.498, 1.16

0.434

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.841

0.311

-1.45, -0.232

0.009

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.946

0.444

0.076, 1.82

0.038

Pseudo R square

0.046

ras_goal

(Intercept)

17.4

0.464

16.5, 18.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.347

0.653

-0.932, 1.63

0.596

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.677

0.523

-1.70, 0.348

0.201

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.58

0.746

0.121, 3.05

0.038

Pseudo R square

0.035

ras_reliance

(Intercept)

13.0

0.422

12.1, 13.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.290

0.594

-0.874, 1.45

0.626

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.212

0.423

-0.617, 1.04

0.619

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.11

0.604

-0.071, 2.30

0.071

Pseudo R square

0.038

ras_domination

(Intercept)

10.3

0.345

9.66, 11.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.941

0.485

-1.89, 0.010

0.055

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.594

0.435

-1.45, 0.258

0.178

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.74

0.620

0.525, 2.95

0.007

Pseudo R square

0.040

symptom

(Intercept)

32.1

1.456

29.3, 35.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-3.07

2.047

-7.08, 0.943

0.137

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.188

1.129

-2.02, 2.40

0.869

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.79

1.612

-4.95, 1.37

0.272

Pseudo R square

0.038

slof_work

(Intercept)

22.5

0.741

21.0, 24.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.367

1.042

-1.68, 2.41

0.726

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.418

0.650

-1.69, 0.856

0.523

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.156

0.928

-1.97, 1.66

0.867

Pseudo R square

0.003

slof_relationship

(Intercept)

25.0

0.892

23.3, 26.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.27

1.254

-1.19, 3.73

0.315

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-1.26

0.845

-2.91, 0.399

0.143

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.58

1.206

-0.787, 3.94

0.197

Pseudo R square

0.028

satisfaction

(Intercept)

18.8

1.038

16.7, 20.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

3.07

1.460

0.210, 5.93

0.038

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.754

1.172

-1.54, 3.05

0.523

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.099

1.672

-3.18, 3.38

0.953

Pseudo R square

0.051

mhc_emotional

(Intercept)

10.6

0.560

9.54, 11.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.897

0.788

-0.647, 2.44

0.258

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.410

0.536

-0.640, 1.46

0.447

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.518

0.765

-2.02, 0.981

0.501

Pseudo R square

0.011

mhc_social

(Intercept)

15.0

0.837

13.4, 16.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.289

1.178

-2.60, 2.02

0.807

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.707

0.923

-1.10, 2.52

0.447

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.413

1.317

-2.99, 2.17

0.755

Pseudo R square

0.004

mhc_psychological

(Intercept)

21.4

0.948

19.6, 23.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.990

1.334

-1.62, 3.60

0.459

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.489

0.990

-1.45, 2.43

0.623

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.067

1.413

-2.84, 2.70

0.962

Pseudo R square

0.007

resilisnce

(Intercept)

16.1

0.668

14.8, 17.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.820

0.939

-1.02, 2.66

0.385

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.080

0.702

-1.30, 1.45

0.910

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.15

1.001

-0.816, 3.11

0.257

Pseudo R square

0.027

social_provision

(Intercept)

13.3

0.433

12.4, 14.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.883

0.608

-0.309, 2.08

0.149

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.865

0.508

-1.86, 0.130

0.094

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.03

0.724

-0.393, 2.45

0.161

Pseudo R square

0.055

els_value_living

(Intercept)

16.4

0.445

15.6, 17.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.28

0.626

0.052, 2.51

0.043

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.038

0.482

-0.983, 0.907

0.937

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.507

0.688

-0.841, 1.86

0.464

Pseudo R square

0.060

els_life_fulfill

(Intercept)

11.5

0.469

10.6, 12.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

2.08

0.659

0.786, 3.37

0.002

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.855

0.454

-0.035, 1.74

0.065

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.465

0.648

-1.74, 0.806

0.477

Pseudo R square

0.095

els

(Intercept)

27.9

0.830

26.3, 29.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

3.36

1.167

1.07, 5.64

0.005

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.762

0.794

-0.794, 2.32

0.342

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.118

1.133

-2.10, 2.34

0.918

Pseudo R square

0.091

social_connect

(Intercept)

27.8

1.401

25.1, 30.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.82

1.970

-5.68, 2.04

0.358

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.12

1.252

-1.33, 3.57

0.375

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-2.52

1.788

-6.02, 0.987

0.165

Pseudo R square

0.025

shs_agency

(Intercept)

13.6

0.733

12.1, 15.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.65

1.031

-0.368, 3.68

0.112

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.166

0.738

-1.28, 1.61

0.822

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.542

1.053

-1.52, 2.61

0.609

Pseudo R square

0.037

shs_pathway

(Intercept)

15.9

0.581

14.8, 17.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.05

0.817

-0.556, 2.65

0.203

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.211

0.581

-0.927, 1.35

0.718

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.246

0.829

-1.87, 1.38

0.768

Pseudo R square

0.016

shs

(Intercept)

29.5

1.242

27.1, 31.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

2.70

1.746

-0.722, 6.12

0.125

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.372

1.207

-1.99, 2.74

0.759

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.305

1.723

-3.07, 3.68

0.860

Pseudo R square

0.029

esteem

(Intercept)

12.9

0.212

12.5, 13.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.576

0.298

-1.16, 0.008

0.055

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.050

0.318

-0.673, 0.572

0.874

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.436

0.452

-0.450, 1.32

0.340

Pseudo R square

0.031

mlq_search

(Intercept)

14.9

0.493

14.0, 15.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.290

0.693

-1.07, 1.65

0.676

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.221

0.572

-1.34, 0.901

0.700

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.164

0.817

-1.76, 1.44

0.842

Pseudo R square

0.003

mlq_presence

(Intercept)

13.2

0.623

12.0, 14.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.462

0.876

-1.26, 2.18

0.599

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.088

0.686

-1.26, 1.43

0.898

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.037

0.979

-1.96, 1.88

0.970

Pseudo R square

0.003

mlq

(Intercept)

28.2

1.000

26.2, 30.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.752

1.406

-2.00, 3.51

0.594

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.136

1.112

-2.32, 2.04

0.903

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.198

1.587

-3.31, 2.91

0.901

Pseudo R square

0.003

empower

(Intercept)

18.8

0.623

17.6, 20.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.03

0.877

-0.691, 2.75

0.244

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.045

0.572

-1.17, 1.08

0.937

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.285

0.817

-1.89, 1.32

0.729

Pseudo R square

0.013

ismi_resistance

(Intercept)

14.4

0.382

13.6, 15.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.636

0.537

-0.415, 1.69

0.238

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.020

0.497

-0.995, 0.955

0.968

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.187

0.709

-1.20, 1.58

0.793

Pseudo R square

0.019

ismi_discrimation

(Intercept)

12.4

0.459

11.5, 13.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.92

0.645

-3.18, -0.656

0.004

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.563

0.472

-1.49, 0.363

0.239

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.779

0.674

-0.542, 2.10

0.253

Pseudo R square

0.073

sss_affective

(Intercept)

10.6

0.537

9.56, 11.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.01

0.755

-2.49, 0.466

0.182

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.045

0.518

-1.06, 0.969

0.931

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.07

0.739

-2.52, 0.379

0.154

Pseudo R square

0.046

sss_behavior

(Intercept)

10.4

0.571

9.29, 11.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.34

0.803

-2.92, 0.230

0.097

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.161

0.580

-1.30, 0.977

0.783

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.634

0.828

-2.26, 0.989

0.447

Pseudo R square

0.045

sss_cognitive

(Intercept)

8.66

0.555

7.57, 9.75

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.926

0.781

-2.46, 0.604

0.238

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.909

0.501

-0.074, 1.89

0.076

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.76

0.716

-3.16, -0.353

0.018

Pseudo R square

0.054

sss

(Intercept)

29.7

1.536

26.7, 32.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-3.28

2.160

-7.51, 0.951

0.132

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.737

1.351

-1.91, 3.38

0.587

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-3.45

1.929

-7.23, 0.331

0.079

Pseudo R square

0.054

1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval

Text

recovery_stage_a

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.31) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.09 (95% CI [2.75, 3.44], t(130) = 17.58, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.42], t(130) = -0.28, p = 0.781; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.35])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.72], t(130) = 0.82, p = 0.413; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.61])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.44, 1.00], t(130) = 0.75, p = 0.451; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.85])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

recovery_stage_b

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.42) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.75 (95% CI [16.94, 18.56], t(130) = 42.89, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.76, 1.52], t(130) = 0.66, p = 0.510; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.56])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-1.40, 0.83], t(130) = -0.50, p = 0.614; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.30])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.96, 95% CI [-0.63, 2.54], t(130) = 1.18, p = 0.238; Std. beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.93])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_confidence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.41 (95% CI [27.93, 30.88], t(130) = 39.09, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.10, 95% CI [-0.97, 3.18], t(130) = 1.04, p = 0.298; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.63])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.43, 95% CI [-1.10, 1.96], t(130) = 0.55, p = 0.582; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.39])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.11, 95% CI [-1.08, 3.30], t(130) = 0.99, p = 0.321; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.65])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_willingness

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.00 (95% CI [11.41, 12.59], t(130) = 39.80, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.50, 1.16], t(130) = 0.79, p = 0.432; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.58])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.84, 95% CI [-1.45, -0.23], t(130) = -2.70, p = 0.007; Std. beta = -0.42, 95% CI [-0.72, -0.12])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.95, 95% CI [0.08, 1.82], t(130) = 2.13, p = 0.033; Std. beta = 0.47, 95% CI [0.04, 0.90])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_goal

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.63) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.36 (95% CI [16.45, 18.27], t(130) = 37.41, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.93, 1.63], t(130) = 0.53, p = 0.595; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.52])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.68, 95% CI [-1.70, 0.35], t(130) = -1.29, p = 0.196; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.11])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.58, 95% CI [0.12, 3.05], t(130) = 2.12, p = 0.034; Std. beta = 0.51, 95% CI [0.04, 0.97])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_reliance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.95 (95% CI [12.13, 13.78], t(130) = 30.68, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.87, 1.45], t(130) = 0.49, p = 0.625; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.50])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.62, 1.04], t(130) = 0.50, p = 0.617; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.36])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.11, 95% CI [-0.07, 2.30], t(130) = 1.84, p = 0.065; Std. beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.79])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_domination

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.53) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.34 (95% CI [9.66, 11.02], t(130) = 29.96, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.94, 95% CI [-1.89, 0.01], t(130) = -1.94, p = 0.053; Std. beta = -0.41, 95% CI [-0.83, 4.52e-03])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.59, 95% CI [-1.45, 0.26], t(130) = -1.37, p = 0.172; Std. beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.11])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.74, 95% CI [0.53, 2.95], t(130) = 2.81, p = 0.005; Std. beta = 0.76, 95% CI [0.23, 1.29])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

symptom

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.84) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 32.14 (95% CI [29.28, 34.99], t(130) = 22.07, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.07, 95% CI [-7.08, 0.94], t(130) = -1.50, p = 0.134; Std. beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.72, 0.10])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-2.02, 2.40], t(130) = 0.17, p = 0.868; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.25])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.79, 95% CI [-4.95, 1.37], t(130) = -1.11, p = 0.267; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.14])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_work

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.42e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.50 (95% CI [21.05, 23.95], t(130) = 30.37, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-1.68, 2.41], t(130) = 0.35, p = 0.725; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.50])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.42, 95% CI [-1.69, 0.86], t(130) = -0.64, p = 0.520; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.18])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-1.97, 1.66], t(130) = -0.17, p = 0.867; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.34])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_relationship

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 25.00 (95% CI [23.25, 26.75], t(130) = 28.03, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.27, 95% CI [-1.19, 3.73], t(130) = 1.01, p = 0.313; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.64])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.26, 95% CI [-2.91, 0.40], t(130) = -1.49, p = 0.137; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.07])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.58, 95% CI [-0.79, 3.94], t(130) = 1.31, p = 0.191; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.67])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

satisfaction

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.75 (95% CI [16.71, 20.79], t(130) = 18.06, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 3.07, 95% CI [0.21, 5.93], t(130) = 2.10, p = 0.035; Std. beta = 0.44, 95% CI [0.03, 0.84])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.75, 95% CI [-1.54, 3.05], t(130) = 0.64, p = 0.520; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.43])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-3.18, 3.38], t(130) = 0.06, p = 0.953; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.48])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_emotional

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.64 (95% CI [9.54, 11.73], t(130) = 18.99, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.90, 95% CI [-0.65, 2.44], t(130) = 1.14, p = 0.255; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.66])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.64, 1.46], t(130) = 0.77, p = 0.444; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.40])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.52, 95% CI [-2.02, 0.98], t(130) = -0.68, p = 0.498; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.27])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_social

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.74e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.00 (95% CI [13.36, 16.64], t(130) = 17.91, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-2.60, 2.02], t(130) = -0.25, p = 0.806; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.37])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.71, 95% CI [-1.10, 2.52], t(130) = 0.77, p = 0.444; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.46])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.41, 95% CI [-2.99, 2.17], t(130) = -0.31, p = 0.754; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.39])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_psychological

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.02e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.43 (95% CI [19.57, 23.29], t(130) = 22.60, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.99, 95% CI [-1.62, 3.60], t(130) = 0.74, p = 0.458; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.57])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-1.45, 2.43], t(130) = 0.49, p = 0.622; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.38])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-2.84, 2.70], t(130) = -0.05, p = 0.962; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.43])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

resilisnce

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.11 (95% CI [14.80, 17.42], t(130) = 24.13, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.82, 95% CI [-1.02, 2.66], t(130) = 0.87, p = 0.383; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.60])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-1.30, 1.45], t(130) = 0.11, p = 0.910; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.33])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.15, 95% CI [-0.82, 3.11], t(130) = 1.14, p = 0.252; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.70])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_provision

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.61) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.25 (95% CI [12.40, 14.10], t(130) = 30.63, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.88, 95% CI [-0.31, 2.08], t(130) = 1.45, p = 0.146; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.70])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.86, 95% CI [-1.86, 0.13], t(130) = -1.70, p = 0.089; Std. beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.04])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.03, 95% CI [-0.39, 2.45], t(130) = 1.42, p = 0.156; Std. beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.82])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_value_living

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.43 (95% CI [15.56, 17.30], t(130) = 36.91, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.28, 95% CI [0.05, 2.51], t(130) = 2.04, p = 0.041; Std. beta = 0.42, 95% CI [0.02, 0.82])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.98, 0.91], t(130) = -0.08, p = 0.937; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.30])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.51, 95% CI [-0.84, 1.86], t(130) = 0.74, p = 0.461; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.61])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_life_fulfill

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.10. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.48 (95% CI [10.56, 12.40], t(130) = 24.48, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 2.08, 95% CI [0.79, 3.37], t(130) = 3.15, p = 0.002; Std. beta = 0.64, 95% CI [0.24, 1.04])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.85, 95% CI [-0.04, 1.74], t(130) = 1.88, p = 0.060; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.54])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.46, 95% CI [-1.74, 0.81], t(130) = -0.72, p = 0.473; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.25])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.09. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.91 (95% CI [26.28, 29.54], t(130) = 33.64, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 3.36, 95% CI [1.07, 5.64], t(130) = 2.88, p = 0.004; Std. beta = 0.58, 95% CI [0.19, 0.98])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.76, 95% CI [-0.79, 2.32], t(130) = 0.96, p = 0.337; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.40])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-2.10, 2.34], t(130) = 0.10, p = 0.917; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.41])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_connect

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.84 (95% CI [25.09, 30.59], t(130) = 19.87, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.82, 95% CI [-5.68, 2.04], t(130) = -0.92, p = 0.356; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.21])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.12, 95% CI [-1.33, 3.57], t(130) = 0.90, p = 0.371; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.38])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.52, 95% CI [-6.02, 0.99], t(130) = -1.41, p = 0.159; Std. beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.10])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_agency

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.57 (95% CI [12.13, 15.01], t(130) = 18.50, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.65, 95% CI [-0.37, 3.68], t(130) = 1.60, p = 0.109; Std. beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.75])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-1.28, 1.61], t(130) = 0.23, p = 0.821; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.33])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.54, 95% CI [-1.52, 2.61], t(130) = 0.51, p = 0.607; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.53])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_pathway

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.93 (95% CI [14.79, 17.07], t(130) = 27.42, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.05, 95% CI [-0.56, 2.65], t(130) = 1.28, p = 0.201; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.69])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.93, 1.35], t(130) = 0.36, p = 0.717; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.35])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-1.87, 1.38], t(130) = -0.30, p = 0.767; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.36])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.50 (95% CI [27.07, 31.93], t(130) = 23.76, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.70, 95% CI [-0.72, 6.12], t(130) = 1.55, p = 0.122; Std. beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.74])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-1.99, 2.74], t(130) = 0.31, p = 0.758; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.33])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-3.07, 3.68], t(130) = 0.18, p = 0.860; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.44])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

esteem

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.29) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.93 (95% CI [12.52, 13.35], t(130) = 61.04, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.58, 95% CI [-1.16, 7.68e-03], t(130) = -1.93, p = 0.053; Std. beta = -0.41, 95% CI [-0.83, 5.48e-03])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.67, 0.57], t(130) = -0.16, p = 0.874; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.41])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-0.45, 1.32], t(130) = 0.96, p = 0.335; Std. beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.94])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_search

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.60) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.41e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.93 (95% CI [13.97, 15.90], t(130) = 30.28, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-1.07, 1.65], t(130) = 0.42, p = 0.675; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.51])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-1.34, 0.90], t(130) = -0.39, p = 0.699; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.28])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-1.76, 1.44], t(130) = -0.20, p = 0.841; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.44])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_presence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.02e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.23 (95% CI [12.01, 14.45], t(130) = 21.23, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-1.26, 2.18], t(130) = 0.53, p = 0.598; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.53])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-1.26, 1.43], t(130) = 0.13, p = 0.898; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.35])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-1.96, 1.88], t(130) = -0.04, p = 0.970; Std. beta = -9.00e-03, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.46])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.63) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.03e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.16 (95% CI [26.20, 30.12], t(130) = 28.16, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.75, 95% CI [-2.00, 3.51], t(130) = 0.53, p = 0.593; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.53])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-2.32, 2.04], t(130) = -0.12, p = 0.903; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.31])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-3.31, 2.91], t(130) = -0.12, p = 0.901; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.44])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

empower

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.77 (95% CI [17.55, 19.99], t(130) = 30.11, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.03, 95% CI [-0.69, 2.75], t(130) = 1.17, p = 0.241; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.66])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-1.17, 1.08], t(130) = -0.08, p = 0.937; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.26])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-1.89, 1.32], t(130) = -0.35, p = 0.728; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.32])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_resistance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.48) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.36 (95% CI [13.62, 15.11], t(130) = 37.65, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.64, 95% CI [-0.42, 1.69], t(130) = 1.19, p = 0.236; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.67])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-1.00, 0.95], t(130) = -0.04, p = 0.968; Std. beta = -7.99e-03, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.38])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-1.20, 1.58], t(130) = 0.26, p = 0.792; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.62])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_discrimation

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.07. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.41 (95% CI [11.51, 13.31], t(130) = 27.06, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.92, 95% CI [-3.18, -0.66], t(130) = -2.98, p = 0.003; Std. beta = -0.61, 95% CI [-1.01, -0.21])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.56, 95% CI [-1.49, 0.36], t(130) = -1.19, p = 0.234; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.12])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.78, 95% CI [-0.54, 2.10], t(130) = 1.16, p = 0.248; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.67])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_affective

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.61 (95% CI [9.56, 11.67], t(130) = 19.77, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.01, 95% CI [-2.49, 0.47], t(130) = -1.34, p = 0.179; Std. beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-0.68, 0.13])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-1.06, 0.97], t(130) = -0.09, p = 0.930; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.26])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.07, 95% CI [-2.52, 0.38], t(130) = -1.45, p = 0.148; Std. beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-0.68, 0.10])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_behavior

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.41 (95% CI [9.29, 11.53], t(130) = 18.24, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.34, 95% CI [-2.92, 0.23], t(130) = -1.67, p = 0.094; Std. beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-0.75, 0.06])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-1.30, 0.98], t(130) = -0.28, p = 0.782; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.25])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.63, 95% CI [-2.26, 0.99], t(130) = -0.77, p = 0.444; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.25])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_cognitive

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.66 (95% CI [7.57, 9.75], t(130) = 15.60, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.93, 95% CI [-2.46, 0.60], t(130) = -1.19, p = 0.236; Std. beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.16])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.91, 95% CI [-0.07, 1.89], t(130) = 1.81, p = 0.070; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.50])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.76, 95% CI [-3.16, -0.35], t(130) = -2.45, p = 0.014; Std. beta = -0.47, 95% CI [-0.84, -0.09])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.68 (95% CI [26.67, 32.69], t(130) = 19.33, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.28, 95% CI [-7.51, 0.95], t(130) = -1.52, p = 0.129; Std. beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.71, 0.09])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [-1.91, 3.38], t(130) = 0.55, p = 0.585; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.32])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.45, 95% CI [-7.23, 0.33], t(130) = -1.79, p = 0.074; Std. beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-0.69, 0.03])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

Likelihood ratio tests

outcome

model

npar

AIC

BIC

logLik

deviance

Chisq

Df

p

recovery_stage_a

null

3

429.472

438.210

-211.736

423.472

recovery_stage_a

random

6

431.285

448.761

-209.642

419.285

4.187

3

0.242

recovery_stage_b

null

3

657.450

666.188

-325.725

651.450

recovery_stage_b

random

6

660.189

677.665

-324.095

648.189

3.261

3

0.353

ras_confidence

null

3

801.724

810.462

-397.862

795.724

ras_confidence

random

6

801.724

819.200

-394.862

789.724

6.000

3

0.112

ras_willingness

null

3

555.648

564.386

-274.824

549.648

ras_willingness

random

6

552.358

569.834

-270.179

540.358

9.290

3

0.026

ras_goal

null

3

677.148

685.886

-335.574

671.148

ras_goal

random

6

676.877

694.353

-332.439

664.877

6.271

3

0.099

ras_reliance

null

3

646.047

654.785

-320.023

640.047

ras_reliance

random

6

641.489

658.965

-314.745

629.489

10.557

3

0.014

ras_domination

null

3

607.859

616.597

-300.930

601.859

ras_domination

random

6

604.761

622.237

-296.380

592.761

9.098

3

0.028

symptom

null

3

955.124

963.862

-474.562

949.124

symptom

random

6

955.957

973.433

-471.979

943.957

5.167

3

0.160

slof_work

null

3

778.398

787.136

-386.199

772.398

slof_work

random

6

783.092

800.568

-385.546

771.092

1.306

3

0.728

slof_relationship

null

3

838.515

847.253

-416.258

832.515

slof_relationship

random

6

840.123

857.599

-414.062

828.123

4.392

3

0.222

satisfaction

null

3

895.956

904.694

-444.978

889.956

satisfaction

random

6

896.026

913.502

-442.013

884.026

5.929

3

0.115

mhc_emotional

null

3

710.115

718.853

-352.058

704.115

mhc_emotional

random

6

714.479

731.955

-351.239

702.479

1.636

3

0.651

mhc_social

null

3

830.433

839.171

-412.216

824.433

mhc_social

random

6

835.586

853.062

-411.793

823.586

0.847

3

0.838

mhc_psychological

null

3

860.041

868.778

-427.020

854.041

mhc_psychological

random

6

865.023

882.499

-426.512

853.023

1.017

3

0.797

resilisnce

null

3

768.783

777.521

-381.392

762.783

resilisnce

random

6

770.163

787.639

-379.081

758.163

4.620

3

0.202

social_provision

null

3

662.276

671.014

-328.138

656.276

social_provision

random

6

660.901

678.377

-324.450

648.901

7.376

3

0.061

els_value_living

null

3

662.962

671.700

-328.481

656.962

els_value_living

random

6

662.288

679.764

-325.144

650.288

6.674

3

0.083

els_life_fulfill

null

3

674.331

683.069

-334.165

668.331

els_life_fulfill

random

6

667.086

684.562

-327.543

655.086

13.245

3

0.004

els

null

3

826.253

834.991

-410.127

820.253

els

random

6

821.322

838.798

-404.661

809.322

10.931

3

0.012

social_connect

null

3

955.799

964.537

-474.900

949.799

social_connect

random

6

957.991

975.467

-472.996

945.991

3.808

3

0.283

shs_agency

null

3

790.358

799.096

-392.179

784.358

shs_agency

random

6

792.036

809.512

-390.018

780.036

4.322

3

0.229

shs_pathway

null

3

723.867

732.605

-358.933

717.867

shs_pathway

random

6

728.153

745.629

-358.076

716.153

1.714

3

0.634

shs

null

3

929.526

938.264

-461.763

923.526

shs

random

6

932.347

949.823

-460.174

920.347

3.178

3

0.365

esteem

null

3

481.403

490.141

-237.701

475.403

esteem

random

6

483.035

500.511

-235.518

471.035

4.367

3

0.224

mlq_search

null

3

690.413

699.151

-342.207

684.413

mlq_search

random

6

695.660

713.136

-341.830

683.660

0.754

3

0.861

mlq_presence

null

3

749.406

758.144

-371.703

743.406

mlq_presence

random

6

755.081

772.557

-371.541

743.081

0.325

3

0.955

mlq

null

3

878.964

887.702

-436.482

872.964

mlq

random

6

884.574

902.050

-436.287

872.574

0.390

3

0.942

empower

null

3

735.634

744.372

-364.817

729.634

empower

random

6

740.007

757.483

-364.004

728.007

1.627

3

0.653

ismi_resistance

null

3

630.639

639.377

-312.320

624.639

ismi_resistance

random

6

634.506

651.982

-311.253

622.506

2.134

3

0.545

ismi_discrimation

null

3

669.398

678.136

-331.699

663.398

ismi_discrimation

random

6

666.301

683.777

-327.151

654.301

9.097

3

0.028

sss_affective

null

3

705.291

714.029

-349.646

699.291

sss_affective

random

6

703.562

721.038

-345.781

691.562

7.729

3

0.052

sss_behavior

null

3

724.491

733.228

-359.245

718.491

sss_behavior

random

6

724.681

742.157

-356.341

712.681

5.809

3

0.121

sss_cognitive

null

3

710.422

719.160

-352.211

704.422

sss_cognitive

random

6

707.058

724.534

-347.529

695.058

9.364

3

0.025

sss

null

3

983.814

992.552

-488.907

977.814

sss

random

6

981.556

999.032

-484.778

969.556

8.258

3

0.041

Post hoc analysis

Table

outcome

time

control

treatment

between

n

estimate

within es

n

estimate

within es

p

es

recovery_stage_a

1st

44

3.09 ± 1.17

45

3.02 ± 1.17

0.782

0.070

recovery_stage_a

2nd

24

3.30 ± 1.15

-0.217

23

3.51 ± 1.15

-0.501

0.535

-0.214

recovery_stage_b

1st

44

17.75 ± 2.75

45

18.13 ± 2.75

0.511

-0.181

recovery_stage_b

2nd

24

17.46 ± 2.66

0.135

23

18.80 ± 2.65

-0.316

0.087

-0.632

ras_confidence

1st

44

29.41 ± 4.99

45

30.51 ± 4.99

0.300

-0.391

ras_confidence

2nd

24

29.84 ± 4.45

-0.153

23

32.05 ± 4.40

-0.547

0.089

-0.785

ras_willingness

1st

44

12.00 ± 2.00

45

12.33 ± 2.00

0.434

-0.298

ras_willingness

2nd

24

11.16 ± 1.78

0.752

23

12.44 ± 1.76

-0.094

0.014

-1.145

ras_goal

1st

44

17.36 ± 3.08

45

17.71 ± 3.08

0.596

-0.183

ras_goal

2nd

24

16.69 ± 2.81

0.357

23

18.62 ± 2.79

-0.479

0.019

-1.019

ras_reliance

1st

44

12.95 ± 2.80

45

13.24 ± 2.80

0.626

-0.191

ras_reliance

2nd

24

13.17 ± 2.47

-0.140

23

14.57 ± 2.44

-0.873

0.052

-0.925

ras_domination

1st

44

10.34 ± 2.29

45

9.40 ± 2.29

0.055

0.589

ras_domination

2nd

24

9.75 ± 2.16

0.372

23

10.55 ± 2.15

-0.718

0.206

-0.501

symptom

1st

44

32.14 ± 9.66

45

29.07 ± 9.66

0.137

0.770

symptom

2nd

24

32.32 ± 8.02

-0.047

23

27.46 ± 7.88

0.402

0.038

1.219

slof_work

1st

44

22.50 ± 4.92

45

22.87 ± 4.92

0.726

-0.159

slof_work

2nd

24

22.08 ± 4.19

0.181

23

22.29 ± 4.13

0.248

0.862

-0.091

slof_relationship

1st

44

25.00 ± 5.92

45

26.27 ± 5.92

0.315

-0.420

slof_relationship

2nd

24

23.74 ± 5.14

0.417

23

26.59 ± 5.08

-0.106

0.059

-0.943

satisfaction

1st

44

18.75 ± 6.89

45

21.82 ± 6.89

0.038

-0.723

satisfaction

2nd

24

19.50 ± 6.28

-0.177

23

22.67 ± 6.24

-0.201

0.085

-0.746

mhc_emotional

1st

44

10.64 ± 3.72

45

11.53 ± 3.72

0.258

-0.468

mhc_emotional

2nd

24

11.05 ± 3.24

-0.214

23

11.43 ± 3.20

0.056

0.687

-0.198

mhc_social

1st

44

15.00 ± 5.55

45

14.71 ± 5.55

0.807

0.087

mhc_social

2nd

24

15.71 ± 5.03

-0.212

23

15.00 ± 4.99

-0.088

0.632

0.210

mhc_psychological

1st

44

21.43 ± 6.29

45

22.42 ± 6.29

0.459

-0.278

mhc_psychological

2nd

24

21.92 ± 5.61

-0.137

23

22.84 ± 5.56

-0.118

0.572

-0.259

resilisnce

1st

44

16.11 ± 4.43

45

16.93 ± 4.43

0.385

-0.325

resilisnce

2nd

24

16.19 ± 3.96

-0.032

23

18.16 ± 3.92

-0.485

0.089

-0.778

social_provision

1st

44

13.25 ± 2.87

45

14.13 ± 2.87

0.149

-0.478

social_provision

2nd

24

12.39 ± 2.65

0.468

23

14.30 ± 2.63

-0.088

0.014

-1.034

els_value_living

1st

44

16.43 ± 2.95

45

17.71 ± 2.95

0.043

-0.735

els_value_living

2nd

24

16.39 ± 2.66

0.022

23

18.18 ± 2.64

-0.270

0.022

-1.027

els_life_fulfill

1st

44

11.48 ± 3.11

45

13.56 ± 3.11

0.002

-1.280

els_life_fulfill

2nd

24

12.33 ± 2.72

-0.526

23

13.95 ± 2.68

-0.240

0.043

-0.994

els

1st

44

27.91 ± 5.50

45

31.27 ± 5.50

0.005

-1.184

els

2nd

24

28.67 ± 4.79

-0.269

23

32.15 ± 4.74

-0.310

0.014

-1.225

social_connect

1st

44

27.84 ± 9.29

45

26.02 ± 9.29

0.358

0.408

social_connect

2nd

24

28.96 ± 7.96

-0.252

23

24.63 ± 7.85

0.313

0.062

0.973

shs_agency

1st

44

13.57 ± 4.87

45

15.22 ± 4.87

0.112

-0.625

shs_agency

2nd

24

13.73 ± 4.29

-0.063

23

15.93 ± 4.25

-0.268

0.080

-0.830

shs_pathway

1st

44

15.93 ± 3.85

45

16.98 ± 3.85

0.203

-0.502

shs_pathway

2nd

24

16.14 ± 3.40

-0.101

23

16.94 ± 3.36

0.017

0.418

-0.384

shs

1st

44

29.50 ± 8.24

45

32.20 ± 8.24

0.125

-0.625

shs

2nd

24

29.87 ± 7.20

-0.086

23

32.88 ± 7.12

-0.157

0.153

-0.696

esteem

1st

44

12.93 ± 1.41

45

12.36 ± 1.41

0.055

0.478

esteem

2nd

24

12.88 ± 1.39

0.042

23

12.74 ± 1.39

-0.320

0.731

0.116

mlq_search

1st

44

14.93 ± 3.27

45

15.22 ± 3.27

0.676

-0.140

mlq_search

2nd

24

14.71 ± 3.01

0.106

23

14.84 ± 2.99

0.185

0.885

-0.061

mlq_presence

1st

44

13.23 ± 4.13

45

13.69 ± 4.13

0.599

-0.186

mlq_presence

2nd

24

13.32 ± 3.74

-0.036

23

13.74 ± 3.71

-0.021

0.697

-0.171

mlq

1st

44

28.16 ± 6.63

45

28.91 ± 6.63

0.594

-0.187

mlq

2nd

24

28.02 ± 6.02

0.034

23

28.58 ± 5.98

0.083

0.752

-0.138

empower

1st

44

18.77 ± 4.14

45

19.80 ± 4.14

0.244

-0.504

empower

2nd

24

18.73 ± 3.56

0.022

23

19.47 ± 3.52

0.162

0.473

-0.364

ismi_resistance

1st

44

14.36 ± 2.53

45

15.00 ± 2.53

0.238

-0.347

ismi_resistance

2nd

24

14.34 ± 2.41

0.011

23

15.17 ± 2.40

-0.091

0.243

-0.448

ismi_discrimation

1st

44

12.41 ± 3.04

45

10.49 ± 3.04

0.004

1.131

ismi_discrimation

2nd

24

11.85 ± 2.70

0.331

23

10.71 ± 2.68

-0.128

0.148

0.672

sss_affective

1st

44

10.61 ± 3.56

45

9.60 ± 3.56

0.182

0.548

sss_affective

2nd

24

10.57 ± 3.11

0.025

23

8.48 ± 3.07

0.602

0.022

1.126

sss_behavior

1st

44

10.41 ± 3.79

45

9.07 ± 3.79

0.097

0.644

sss_behavior

2nd

24

10.25 ± 3.35

0.077

23

8.27 ± 3.32

0.382

0.044

0.949

sss_cognitive

1st

44

8.66 ± 3.68

45

7.73 ± 3.68

0.238

0.519

sss_cognitive

2nd

24

9.57 ± 3.16

-0.509

23

6.89 ± 3.12

0.475

0.004

1.503

sss

1st

44

29.68 ± 10.19

45

26.40 ± 10.19

0.132

0.684

sss

2nd

24

30.42 ± 8.69

-0.154

23

23.69 ± 8.57

0.565

0.008

1.402

Between group

recovery_stage_a

1st

t(124.66) = -0.28, p = 0.782, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-0.56 to 0.42)

2st

t(131.22) = 0.62, p = 0.535, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.46 to 0.87)

recovery_stage_b

1st

t(119.34) = 0.66, p = 0.511, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.77 to 1.54)

2st

t(131.10) = 1.73, p = 0.087, Cohen d = -0.63, 95% CI (-0.19 to 2.87)

ras_confidence

1st

t(103.44) = 1.04, p = 0.300, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-1.00 to 3.20)

2st

t(131.91) = 1.71, p = 0.089, Cohen d = -0.79, 95% CI (-0.34 to 4.76)

ras_willingness

1st

t(103.11) = 0.79, p = 0.434, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.51 to 1.17)

2st

t(131.87) = 2.48, p = 0.014, Cohen d = -1.14, 95% CI (0.26 to 2.30)

ras_goal

1st

t(106.95) = 0.53, p = 0.596, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.95 to 1.64)

2st

t(131.95) = 2.37, p = 0.019, Cohen d = -1.02, 95% CI (0.32 to 3.55)

ras_reliance

1st

t(102.01) = 0.49, p = 0.626, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.89 to 1.47)

2st

t(131.66) = 1.96, p = 0.052, Cohen d = -0.92, 95% CI (-0.01 to 2.82)

ras_domination

1st

t(113.21) = -1.94, p = 0.055, Cohen d = 0.59, 95% CI (-1.90 to 0.02)

2st

t(131.41) = 1.27, p = 0.206, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-0.44 to 2.04)

symptom

1st

t(95.32) = -1.50, p = 0.137, Cohen d = 0.77, 95% CI (-7.13 to 0.99)

2st

t(125.73) = -2.10, p = 0.038, Cohen d = 1.22, 95% CI (-9.45 to -0.27)

slof_work

1st

t(98.00) = 0.35, p = 0.726, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-1.70 to 2.43)

2st

t(129.47) = 0.17, p = 0.862, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-2.19 to 2.61)

slof_relationship

1st

t(100.15) = 1.01, p = 0.315, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-1.22 to 3.76)

2st

t(131.00) = 1.91, p = 0.059, Cohen d = -0.94, 95% CI (-0.10 to 5.79)

satisfaction

1st

t(107.03) = 2.10, p = 0.038, Cohen d = -0.72, 95% CI (0.18 to 5.97)

2st

t(131.95) = 1.74, p = 0.085, Cohen d = -0.75, 95% CI (-0.44 to 6.78)

mhc_emotional

1st

t(100.47) = 1.14, p = 0.258, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-0.67 to 2.46)

2st

t(131.15) = 0.40, p = 0.687, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-1.48 to 2.24)

mhc_social

1st

t(105.90) = -0.25, p = 0.807, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-2.62 to 2.05)

2st

t(131.99) = -0.48, p = 0.632, Cohen d = 0.21, 95% CI (-3.59 to 2.19)

mhc_psychological

1st

t(103.58) = 0.74, p = 0.459, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-1.65 to 3.64)

2st

t(131.92) = 0.57, p = 0.572, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-2.30 to 4.15)

resilisnce

1st

t(103.83) = 0.87, p = 0.385, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-1.04 to 2.68)

2st

t(131.94) = 1.71, p = 0.089, Cohen d = -0.78, 95% CI (-0.31 to 4.24)

social_provision

1st

t(109.04) = 1.45, p = 0.149, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-0.32 to 2.09)

2st

t(131.79) = 2.48, p = 0.014, Cohen d = -1.03, 95% CI (0.39 to 3.43)

els_value_living

1st

t(105.11) = 2.04, p = 0.043, Cohen d = -0.74, 95% CI (0.04 to 2.52)

2st

t(132.00) = 2.31, p = 0.022, Cohen d = -1.03, 95% CI (0.26 to 3.32)

els_life_fulfill

1st

t(100.86) = 3.15, p = 0.002, Cohen d = -1.28, 95% CI (0.77 to 3.39)

2st

t(131.31) = 2.05, p = 0.043, Cohen d = -0.99, 95% CI (0.05 to 3.17)

els

1st

t(100.47) = 2.88, p = 0.005, Cohen d = -1.18, 95% CI (1.04 to 5.67)

2st

t(131.14) = 2.50, p = 0.014, Cohen d = -1.23, 95% CI (0.73 to 6.23)

social_connect

1st

t(98.49) = -0.92, p = 0.358, Cohen d = 0.41, 95% CI (-5.73 to 2.09)

2st

t(129.91) = -1.88, p = 0.062, Cohen d = 0.97, 95% CI (-8.90 to 0.23)

shs_agency

1st

t(102.17) = 1.60, p = 0.112, Cohen d = -0.62, 95% CI (-0.39 to 3.70)

2st

t(131.70) = 1.76, p = 0.080, Cohen d = -0.83, 95% CI (-0.27 to 4.66)

shs_pathway

1st

t(101.94) = 1.28, p = 0.203, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-0.57 to 2.67)

2st

t(131.64) = 0.81, p = 0.418, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-1.15 to 2.75)

shs

1st

t(100.99) = 1.55, p = 0.125, Cohen d = -0.63, 95% CI (-0.76 to 6.16)

2st

t(131.36) = 1.44, p = 0.153, Cohen d = -0.70, 95% CI (-1.13 to 7.14)

esteem

1st

t(126.13) = -1.93, p = 0.055, Cohen d = 0.48, 95% CI (-1.17 to 0.01)

2st

t(131.33) = -0.34, p = 0.731, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-0.95 to 0.66)

mlq_search

1st

t(108.47) = 0.42, p = 0.676, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.08 to 1.66)

2st

t(131.84) = 0.14, p = 0.885, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-1.60 to 1.86)

mlq_presence

1st

t(105.84) = 0.53, p = 0.599, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-1.28 to 2.20)

2st

t(131.99) = 0.39, p = 0.697, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-1.73 to 2.58)

mlq

1st

t(106.32) = 0.53, p = 0.594, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-2.04 to 3.54)

2st

t(131.98) = 0.32, p = 0.752, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-2.91 to 4.02)

empower

1st

t(99.22) = 1.17, p = 0.244, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-0.71 to 2.77)

2st

t(130.46) = 0.72, p = 0.473, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-1.30 to 2.79)

ismi_resistance

1st

t(115.52) = 1.19, p = 0.238, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.43 to 1.70)

2st

t(131.24) = 1.17, p = 0.243, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (-0.57 to 2.21)

ismi_discrimation

1st

t(103.05) = -2.98, p = 0.004, Cohen d = 1.13, 95% CI (-3.20 to -0.64)

2st

t(131.86) = -1.45, p = 0.148, Cohen d = 0.67, 95% CI (-2.69 to 0.41)

sss_affective

1st

t(100.73) = -1.34, p = 0.182, Cohen d = 0.55, 95% CI (-2.51 to 0.48)

2st

t(131.26) = -2.31, p = 0.022, Cohen d = 1.13, 95% CI (-3.87 to -0.30)

sss_behavior

1st

t(102.57) = -1.67, p = 0.097, Cohen d = 0.64, 95% CI (-2.93 to 0.25)

2st

t(131.78) = -2.03, p = 0.044, Cohen d = 0.95, 95% CI (-3.90 to -0.05)

sss_cognitive

1st

t(98.78) = -1.19, p = 0.238, Cohen d = 0.52, 95% CI (-2.47 to 0.62)

2st

t(130.14) = -2.93, p = 0.004, Cohen d = 1.50, 95% CI (-4.49 to -0.87)

sss

1st

t(98.07) = -1.52, p = 0.132, Cohen d = 0.68, 95% CI (-7.57 to 1.00)

2st

t(129.54) = -2.67, p = 0.008, Cohen d = 1.40, 95% CI (-11.71 to -1.75)

Within treatment group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(66.90) = 1.85, p = 0.137, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-0.04 to 1.02)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(62.77) = 1.15, p = 0.509, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.49 to 1.83)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(53.30) = 1.92, p = 0.120, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-0.07 to 3.14)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(53.12) = 0.33, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.53 to 0.74)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(55.19) = 1.70, p = 0.191, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-0.17 to 1.98)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(52.54) = 3.06, p = 0.007, Cohen d = -0.87, 95% CI (0.46 to 2.19)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(58.80) = 2.58, p = 0.025, Cohen d = -0.72, 95% CI (0.26 to 2.04)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(49.11) = -1.39, p = 0.342, Cohen d = 0.40, 95% CI (-3.92 to 0.72)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(50.47) = -0.86, p = 0.784, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-1.91 to 0.76)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(51.57) = 0.37, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-1.41 to 2.05)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(55.24) = 0.71, p = 0.961, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-1.55 to 3.26)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(51.74) = -0.20, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-1.21 to 0.99)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(54.62) = 0.31, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.60 to 2.19)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(53.37) = 0.42, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.61 to 2.45)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(53.50) = 1.71, p = 0.187, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.21 to 2.67)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(56.36) = 0.31, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.88 to 1.20)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(54.19) = 0.95, p = 0.691, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.52 to 1.46)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(51.94) = 0.84, p = 0.810, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.54 to 1.32)

els

1st vs 2st

t(51.74) = 1.08, p = 0.567, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.75 to 2.51)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(50.72) = -1.09, p = 0.562, Cohen d = 0.31, 95% CI (-3.97 to 1.18)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(52.63) = 0.94, p = 0.704, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.81 to 2.22)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(52.50) = -0.06, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-1.23 to 1.16)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(52.01) = 0.55, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-1.80 to 3.15)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(68.26) = 1.19, p = 0.477, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.26 to 1.03)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(56.04) = -0.66, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-1.56 to 0.79)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(54.59) = 0.07, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-1.36 to 1.46)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(54.85) = -0.29, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-2.61 to 1.95)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(51.09) = -0.56, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-1.50 to 0.85)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(60.23) = 0.33, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.85 to 1.18)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(53.09) = 0.45, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.75 to 1.19)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(51.87) = -2.11, p = 0.080, Cohen d = 0.60, 95% CI (-2.18 to -0.05)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(52.84) = -1.34, p = 0.373, Cohen d = 0.38, 95% CI (-1.99 to 0.40)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(50.87) = -1.65, p = 0.209, Cohen d = 0.47, 95% CI (-1.88 to 0.18)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(50.51) = -1.96, p = 0.110, Cohen d = 0.56, 95% CI (-5.49 to 0.06)

Within control group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(65.13) = 0.81, p = 0.837, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.31 to 0.73)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(61.35) = -0.50, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-1.43 to 0.86)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(52.67) = 0.55, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.15 to 2.01)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(52.50) = -2.69, p = 0.019, Cohen d = 0.75, 95% CI (-1.47 to -0.21)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(54.41) = -1.29, p = 0.407, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-1.73 to 0.38)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(51.97) = 0.50, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.64 to 1.06)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(57.71) = -1.36, p = 0.359, Cohen d = 0.37, 95% CI (-1.47 to 0.28)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(48.81) = 0.17, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-2.09 to 2.46)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(50.06) = -0.64, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-1.73 to 0.89)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(51.08) = -1.48, p = 0.289, Cohen d = 0.42, 95% CI (-2.96 to 0.44)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(54.45) = 0.64, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-1.61 to 3.11)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(51.23) = 0.76, p = 0.898, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.67 to 1.49)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(53.88) = 0.76, p = 0.898, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-1.15 to 2.57)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(52.74) = 0.49, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.51 to 2.48)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(52.85) = 0.11, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-1.33 to 1.49)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(55.48) = -1.69, p = 0.192, Cohen d = 0.47, 95% CI (-1.89 to 0.16)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(53.49) = -0.08, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-1.01 to 0.93)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(51.42) = 1.88, p = 0.133, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (-0.06 to 1.77)

els

1st vs 2st

t(51.23) = 0.96, p = 0.687, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.84 to 2.36)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(50.29) = 0.89, p = 0.753, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-1.40 to 3.64)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(52.05) = 0.22, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-1.32 to 1.65)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(51.94) = 0.36, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-0.96 to 1.38)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(51.48) = 0.31, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-2.06 to 2.80)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(66.37) = -0.16, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.69 to 0.59)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(55.18) = -0.38, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-1.37 to 0.93)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(53.85) = 0.13, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-1.29 to 1.47)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(54.09) = -0.12, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-2.38 to 2.10)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(50.64) = -0.08, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-1.20 to 1.11)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(59.02) = -0.04, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-1.02 to 0.98)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(52.48) = -1.19, p = 0.482, Cohen d = 0.33, 95% CI (-1.51 to 0.39)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(51.35) = -0.09, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-1.09 to 1.00)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(52.24) = -0.28, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-1.33 to 1.01)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(50.43) = 1.81, p = 0.154, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (-0.10 to 1.92)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(50.10) = 0.54, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.98 to 3.46)

Plot

Clinical significance